If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New guy - A pondering I have had about the Zimmerman case.

Hello all, new guy here.

I have been lurking about for some time now, and have found this forum to be very informative and interesting. I have had my CPL for two years now and have occasionally OCd out of convenience, but have recently been considering OC as my primary method... which leads to my question:

If Florida laws had allowed OC and Zimmerman had actually been OCing when he was following Mr. Martin, could this whole incident have had a different outcome? (aka: Martin had a second thought and decided not to "attack" Zimmerman, and everyone goes home at the end of the day)

If you accept the premise that Martin attacked Zimmerman, even then, I don't see OC necessarily as a deterrent. Some people, even if they have a gun pointed at their face, continue forward.

Then again, one could argue that if a man is chasing you in the night with a gun at his hip, and he is not LEO, then you might be right in defending your life, limb, and grave bodily harm. I don't know about anyone else but a man is chasing me at night with a handgun at his hip, I am going to assume he is going to use it.

Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 04-20-2012 at 12:49 PM.

I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

If you accept the premise that Martin attacked Zimmerman, even then, I don't see OC necessarily as a deterrent. Some people, even if they have a gun pointed at their face, continue forward.

Then again, one could argue that if a man is chasing you in the night with a gun at his hip, and he is not LEO, then you might be right in defending your life, limb, and grave bodily harm. I don't know about anyone else but a man is chasing me at night with a handgun at his hip, I am going to assume he is going to use it.

In Florida how would you know if he had a hand gun on his hip or anywhere else for that matter, OC is unlawful in Florida. Just asking!

If Florida laws had allowed OC and Zimmerman had actually been OCing when he was following Mr. Martin, could this whole incident have had a different outcome? (aka: Martin had a second thought and decided not to "attack" Zimmerman, and everyone goes home at the end of the day)

Grizz

Originally Posted by Orphan

In Florida how would you know if he had a hand gun on his hip or anywhere else for that matter, OC is unlawful in Florida. Just asking!

Read the first post.. Here I quoted it for you so you don't have to scroll up.

If you do not test yourself every single day,
then it is just another wasted day.
--Semper Fi--

Lighting/visibility considerations at the time/scene aside, had Z been legaly OC, and had M a likely chance of clearLY seeing Z's sidearm, I do think this would probably have had a very different outcome.
There is, of course, always the chance-as mentioned above, that M could have -if this were the case- seen a sidearm, and acted anyway, as Natural Selection makes sure to include more than a few morons in our midst, but..somehow, I think things would have gone differently.

Most folks seeing a sidearm on someone tend to moderate their behavior, if for no other reason to avoid having that thing aimed or fired at them, so they can get away and back to whatever they were up to. In fact, seeing a visible sidearm may have given M pause to consider that maybe this IS a LEO of some sort.

But I also think that if this were an OC case, here, it may be a double-edged sword. I'd hardly have preferred this to have been a 1st test-case of OC self-defense, had our cowardly legislators passed HB790 last year.

Given that a cop would have been dressed like a cop, Martin likely assumed Zimmerman was not a cop. Cops typically will investigate if something seems odd or out of place to them. A Cop typically would not have behaved in the manner it is reported that Zimmerman behaved, a cop would make contact with Martin, IDing himself.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

I have had the same thought. OC would likely have defused the situation.

Originally Posted by Grizz

Hello all, new guy here.

I have been lurking about for some time now, and have found this forum to be very informative and interesting. I have had my CPL for two years now and have occasionally OCd out of convenience, but have recently been considering OC as my primary method... which leads to my question:

If Florida laws had allowed OC and Zimmerman had actually been OCing when he was following Mr. Martin, could this whole incident have had a different outcome? (aka: Martin had a second thought and decided not to "attack" Zimmerman, and everyone goes home at the end of the day)

Grizz

It seems the likely outcome. If Martin had seen that Zimmerman was carrying, he likely would have just gone back to his father's girlfriend's condo. If he had seen it when the two met again, he likely would not have attacked.

Could have changed the dynamics entirely.

Martin could have called police about this "armed guy" following him around. OC could be a complete game changer. If the premise that Martin attacked Zimmerman is true, then he very well might have rethought his course of action.

Use of force continuim

IMHO, the real tragedy is that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't as prepared as he could've been for a confrontation. OC spray, a collapsable baton and
especially a really good flashlight may have prevented the situation from becoming lethal. When I was an armed security guard years ago, my
two most used devices were 1) my portable radio and 2) my d-cell mag-light. I had a standard baton, got an ASP now, much easier to carry. Unfortunately, we'll never know just what Mr. Martin's mindset was and I'm still not sure how much training Mr. Zimmerman had to obtain his CCW.

IMHO, the real tragedy is that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't as prepared as he could've been for a confrontation. OC spray, a collapsable baton and
especially a really good flashlight may have prevented the situation from becoming lethal. When I was an armed security guard years ago, my
two most used devices were 1) my portable radio and 2) my d-cell mag-light. I had a standard baton, got an ASP now, much easier to carry. Unfortunately, we'll never know just what Mr. Martin's mindset was and I'm still not sure how much training Mr. Zimmerman had to obtain his CCW.

Preparedness is always a good thing to consider, although I question the legality of civilians carrying a baton in most places. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It would also seem there is a major lack of situational awareness if the guy you are following manages to sneak back up on you... this of course all based on the alleged stories.

In regards to CCW training, I can attest to poor standards through my own experience. The CPL class I took essentially didn't cover anything regarding the safe handling of firearms. There were several first time shooters standing around at the range with fingers resting on triggers

If Florida laws had allowed OC and Zimmerman had actually been OCing when he was following Mr. Martin, could this whole incident have had a different outcome? (aka: Martin had a second thought and decided not to "attack" Zimmerman, and everyone goes home at the end of the day)

Grizz

Welcome to the forum, Grizz!

There's a primary and secondary reason police OC, and the primary reason is deterrence. People around here don't scare easily at the sight of firearms, but they most certainly sport a change in behavior at the sight of someone OCing. They're more distant and guarded, but they're more polite, as well.

The secondary reason is speed of employment. Having used the local PD's firearms training simulator, I can tell you things can go bad in a split-second. You'd don't have time to fool with concealment.

Last edited by since9; 05-01-2012 at 11:04 PM.

The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. They both protect the rest, but only if you exercise them. Nothing in this post is to be misconstrued as "advice" of any kind. It is merely my opinion.

If you come across a business that's either a good support or 2A or stands against our rights, let us know! Input your experience into Friend or Foe. Thanks!

Batons & pepper spray

Thanks, Grizz, for reminding me about various weapons laws in other states. Here in AZ, we can (and do) carry everything that's legal
almost everywhere we go. In AZ, batons are considered a "dangerous instrument" as opposed to a "deadly weapon" although certianly
deadly under certian circumstances. I have no idea what Fla's law on the subject is. If legal, it behooves anyone wanting to carry any
weapon, deadly or not, get qualified instruction in it's use. To not do so leaves one open to criminal & civil penalties, fines, etc. ! Also, he
allowed himself (Z) to be surprised, which is a serious no-no. A good blast of light from a powerful flashlight would have allowed Z any
number of options, mostly far less than lethal. A canister of powerful (civilian legal) pepper spray would have most likely altered M's
attitude once given a goood facefull, that's IF it were legal to carry in Fla. ! BTW, in AZ, we don't have "concealed handgun permits"
as such, we have "concealed weapon permits" and this is literal. Any gun, knife, baton, pepper spray, etc. that's legal to own AND CARRY
is legal to conceal. And all without a "permission slip" from the nanny-state, if one chooses that option !!

Martin could have called police about this "armed guy" following him around. OC could be a complete game changer. If the premise that Martin attacked Zimmerman is true, then he very well might have rethought his course of action.

And it must also be remembered that HAD Zimmerman been OCing, he would have been summarily arrested and his handgun confiscated, because FL does NOT allow OC--even if you have a permit.

So these "if Zimmerman had been OCing" arguments are just silly, because OC isn't legal in FL, and therefore OC was NOT a lawful and legal option for carry.

It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash." --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Assuming that the common areas encompassed by the real property comprising this gated townhome community are in fact PRIVATE PROPERTY enjoyed in common by the respective unit owners, and their assigns (renters), and Florida law does not prohibit OC on one's own (even held in common) property...HOA rules/regulations would most likely address the question regarding legality of OC at the scene.

As to the the "question" of deterrent value of OC - The realization that your "opponent" is wearing a holstered deadly weapon tends to serve as an instant relief valve for aggressive conduct. Menacing behavior can amazingly transform instantly into a willingness to disengage in the presence of a holstered deadly weapon.

At Zimmerman's probable cause/bail hearing one of the investigating LEO's admitted under oath that he was aware of NO EVIDENCE countering Zimmerman's claim that Martin initially attacked him. To date the preponderance of available evidence supports Zimmerman's self defense claim. Therefore it is a reasonable position to take, at this juncture at least, that Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. As to the logical point often stated that we should await the introduction of ALL of the evidence in this case - OK....I'm waiting............

I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

Assuming that the common areas encompassed by the real property comprising this gated townhome community are in fact PRIVATE PROPERTY enjoyed in common by the respective unit owners, and their assigns (renters), and Florida law does not prohibit OC on one's own (even held in common) property...HOA rules/regulations would most likely address the question regarding legality of OC at the scene.

Given that Zimmerman was lawfully CCing, any such "illegality" of carry would be a matter between the HOA/Landlord, and not a criminal matter.

The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. They both protect the rest, but only if you exercise them. Nothing in this post is to be misconstrued as "advice" of any kind. It is merely my opinion.

If you come across a business that's either a good support or 2A or stands against our rights, let us know! Input your experience into Friend or Foe. Thanks!

Thanks, Grizz, for reminding me about various weapons laws in other states. Here in AZ, we can (and do) carry everything that's legal
almost everywhere we go. In AZ, batons are considered a "dangerous instrument" as opposed to a "deadly weapon" although certianly
deadly under certian circumstances.

Anything can be deadly under certain circumstances. A rock from my garden. My 16-lb dumbbells. My large flat-head screwdriver. The two-foot piece of 2x4 in my closet. Heck - WATER can be deadly, particular when it's inside a coke bottle I put in the freezer to increase its thermal mass.

The idea of classifying a weapon as "deadly" makes about as much sense as hitching a wagon train to a dead donkey.

Speaking of which, the most recent nearby murder happened a couple of months ago at Hondos, a local sports bar. The "deadly weapon?" A rock. Colorado's pretty much chock full of them, even out on the prairie. I think that's one reason why they don't seem to care very much about OC.

The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. They both protect the rest, but only if you exercise them. Nothing in this post is to be misconstrued as "advice" of any kind. It is merely my opinion.

If you come across a business that's either a good support or 2A or stands against our rights, let us know! Input your experience into Friend or Foe. Thanks!

Even if he had been OCing it does not mean that the situation would have been different. It was night time so Trayvon would have been less likely to have noticed the OCed gun prior to the attack (this is assuming that Trayvon did attack Zimmerman as he claims).

Now it "could" have caused a different outcome, but there is no way to know if it "would" have caused a different outcome.

Open carry may deter some crime, but it also makes you a target in others. IMO if you have a concealed permit use it. I like the element of surprise.

Please point to five instances in the last 5 years where someone has been targeted for crime (non-military/LEO/security) because of their OCed weapon. If you can't find five in 5 years please say so and I'm willing to open it up to the past 10 years.

My guess is that one would be hard pressed (though they might be out there) to find five cases of this happening against your normal law abiding citizen (hence why those that carry as a part of their profession are excluded; also it is the job of those excluded to insert theirselves into situations a normal LAC would avoid, among other things) in even the last 20 years. So while yes, it "can" make one a target, there is simply a lack of evidence to show this to be the actual case in the real world. And for a lot of people that I've talked with that take the "better to cover it up" or similar attitude (such as "if you have a concealed permit use it"), they use the "possibility" of you being targeted to fear-monger for why it's a bad idea while ignoring the fact that there is a distinct lack of cases of OCers being targetted for crime specifically because of their gun.

Also I know personally I don't want the element of surprise. My goal with OCing is to prevent something from happening before I ever even have to draw my gun because it is already showing (compared to those that CC and have to draw or fire their gun before the criminal decides to go somewhere else).

As for OCers being targeted for crime here are the cases I know of:
1) In the past 6 months someone was specifically targeted for their gun and the criminal got the gun. The victim then chased after the criminal WHO HAD HIS GUN and the criminal turned around and shot him. He then killed someone else and it is believed to be with the stolen gun.
2) In 2011 an insane man who had a politically connected daddy saw an OCer at a restaurant. Insane man proceeded to claim he was DEA and attempted to gain control of the gun. A bystander managed to get a hold of the gun and secure it. Said insane man was somehow released from custody (most likely due to his connected daddy) and proceeded to be killed by cops roughly 2-4 months after this incident.
3) At a date I don't know but prior to 2011 (or maybe early 2011?) a man claimed to have been robbed specifically for his gun that he OCed. It supposedly happened while he was unlocking his door to his apartment. If you just look news stories this is likely all you will find on this case. A member of this board has contacted the police department where this took place and got a response from the police stating that the individual filed a false police report, his gun was never stolen, and was facing charges for a false police report at the time the individual from this board inquired about the incident.

That means that in the last 5 years I only know of a single successful gun grab on someone specifically because they were OCing, one attempt on an OCer (and by someone who was effectively crazy at that), and one flat out lie about a gun grab against an OCer. Personally I think those are some really good odds given that nothing we do in life is without risk and how often CCers are targeted for crime.

Please point to five instances in the last 5 years where someone has been targeted for crime (non-military/LEO/security) because of their OCed weapon.

Thank you for posting this request. I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I read the post. Instead of regurgitating the same incredulous claim that a citizen OCing makes you a target provide a little proof.

The precise manner in which a particular person happens to be wearing their handgun, and their demeanor are both important ingredients within the context of an envisioned, contemplated, or actually acted upon gun-grab attempt - and the operative word here I believe - is ATTEMPT.

Any relatively rational person would comprehend that a FAILED gun-grab could conceivably result in either a lethal bullet wound, or other serious bodily injury as the logical consequence of a failed effort.

My antagonist in the Pit Bull/condo episode a few years back had exhibited verbally menacing behavior directed at me personally in the presence of witnesses a total of 3 times during about a 5 minute time period.

I was confronted by this individual upon walking out my front door as he cruised by in search of his loose dog. He called out to me "Have you seen my dog ?" To which I replied that I hadn't. At which point he issued the first verbal threat as he turned onto a side street. ( " If you hurt my dog I'm gonna MESS YOU UP !) I was a bit taken back needless to say, and immediately concerned that the small children playing in the interior courtyard might be in harms way. I ran into the rear courtyard and began to warn nearby residents to get their children in doors, while the owner tried to locate his loose Pit Bull.

My holstered HG was somewhat covered by my jacket ,but I'm sure this guy had
previously observed the fact that I regularly open carried. This knowledge obviously led him to believe that given the right circumstances I could, and might in fact harm his dog.

I figure that his stressed out concern for his dog's life led him to conclude that it was necessary to threaten me. During this whole episode the dog owner was positioned behind the wheel of his vehicle while driving around the North-Eastern corner of the complex looking for his loose dog and issuing this threat on three occasions.

After advising other residents of the loose dog situation, I was conversing with a couple of the residents near the street when he drove up and once again delivered the same verbal threat for the 2nd time directed at me personally - word for word -in front of two witnesses. Having had all I intended to tolerate of this unnecessary ranting I respectfully approached his vehicle, placed both of my palms on top of his rolled down passenger-side window, and replied with " I beg your pardon ? "- upon which he repeated the threat - word for word - a 3rd time. Rather calmly, but sternly I then responded with... " I'm only trying to help you find your dog. As long as you keep your dog in the house, or on a leash I'm not a threat to either you, or your dog."

In my posture at that moment I was aware that my unzipped jacket allowed the unobstructed display of my holstered Glock. I did not intentionally "engineer" this display, touch my weapon, or refer him to its presence in any fashion. He already knew I was probably armed, but now the HG was "at hand" so to speak. It was at this point that this stressed out dog owner eased into "calm, cool, & collected" mode, disengaged from our encounter in passing, and idled down the street in search of his missing dog. I never crossed paths with him again. He shortly thereafter moved out of the condo.

I think my experience may be relevant to the current discussion regarding the pros/cons of OC, as well as the unique social dynamics of HOA town home/ condo living.

The point that COULD BE made - I suppose - would be that had I NOT previously engaged in open carry between my front door, the cluster mailbox, the dumpster, and other common areas of the condo - this individual would not have been on notice that I was likely armed thereby prompting him to fear for the life of his notoriously loose, and potentially very dangerous dog.

My question would be - Which scenario is more socially desirable - Should individuals predisposed to engage in menacing conduct, habitual negligence placing other members of the community at risk, and perhaps even acting out actual physical violence towards others - NOT be on put on notice that others living in the community are in fact armed - or to operate under the simple assumption that others are not armed ?

OC vs CC should not be an either/or issue. I believe there are occasions more appropriate for CC, and other occasions worthy of consideration for opting to OC . As far as we know Zimmerman wasn't OC'ing, but had he been doing so it is conceivable, and not unreasonable to suppose that given adequate ambient lighting Martin might have noticed Zimmerman's armed condition at some point prior to the physical confrontation - thereby improving the odds that he would still be alive, and we wouldn't even be talking about him and Zimmerman.